Sony 55" 4K TV on demo at Currys...
Discussion
I haven't read too much on 4K at the moment, since #1 there's no content available (is this still the case?) and 4K broadcasts are probably a fairly long way off. #2 there seems no point in 4K unless it's on a huge screen and you're sitting unfeasibly close to it, despite what marketing hype would have people believe.
Anyway, the point of this post is that I noticed a Sony 55" 4K TV playing a native 4K demo reel at my local Currys PC World. Picture looked generally impressive, but I immediately noticed banding in the picture, most noticeable in areas of solid colour. The banding reminded me of the banding you might see on an older dot matrix or inkjet printer when printing areas of solid colour. I expected a flawless picture, so wasn't too impressed to see banding on what is supposed to be a flagship technology and TV.
Is this a known issue? Sorry, I didn't note down the model #.
Anyway, the point of this post is that I noticed a Sony 55" 4K TV playing a native 4K demo reel at my local Currys PC World. Picture looked generally impressive, but I immediately noticed banding in the picture, most noticeable in areas of solid colour. The banding reminded me of the banding you might see on an older dot matrix or inkjet printer when printing areas of solid colour. I expected a flawless picture, so wasn't too impressed to see banding on what is supposed to be a flagship technology and TV.
Is this a known issue? Sorry, I didn't note down the model #.
Interesting topic , my current samsung is knackered. It has loads of lines over the screen and barely watchable. I was was set on the samsung 55F8000 , but having been in Currys today and demoing the Sony 4k I must say I'm really impressed. Like to say , is there any point in getting one considering the lack of content available ?
4K displays can upscale existing 1080p content and having seen the (highly expensive) Sony VW1000ES 4K projector I can say that this alone is worthwhile even without true 4K content. Even on a 5 metre wide screen there was absolutely no sign of the individual pixels and the image was much sharper than the JVC 'faux' 4K projector we'd seen a few minutes before (playing the same clips).
However the comment about banding raises a point that really annoys me: It would be techincally possible to increase the bit depth of 1080p BluRay players and most current TVs would be able to make use of this, the main benefit being that of reduced banding. Of course this wouldn't sell new displays and it would only apply to BluRay viewing, but still.
However, I am of the opinion that 4K TVs don't make much sense since most viewers don't sit close enough to benefit fully from 1080p let alone 4K. Even a projector set up requires quite close seating/very large screen to benefit. For example I sit 11' away from a 10' wide projector screen and I'm just into the 'benefits from 2160p (4K)' range. My 40" viewed from the same distance falls into the 'benefits of 720p become apparent' (ie I'm not close enough to see the benefit of 1080p).
Something to think about before we all go rushing out to buy one...
However the comment about banding raises a point that really annoys me: It would be techincally possible to increase the bit depth of 1080p BluRay players and most current TVs would be able to make use of this, the main benefit being that of reduced banding. Of course this wouldn't sell new displays and it would only apply to BluRay viewing, but still.
However, I am of the opinion that 4K TVs don't make much sense since most viewers don't sit close enough to benefit fully from 1080p let alone 4K. Even a projector set up requires quite close seating/very large screen to benefit. For example I sit 11' away from a 10' wide projector screen and I'm just into the 'benefits from 2160p (4K)' range. My 40" viewed from the same distance falls into the 'benefits of 720p become apparent' (ie I'm not close enough to see the benefit of 1080p).
Something to think about before we all go rushing out to buy one...
They may well be fine (though of course you won't know until you have a 4K source to run through them).
Put it this way: I ran a '1080p' capable 12 metre cable around my living room 6 years ago. The first one I bought wouldn't carry 1080p and just gave noise above 720p so I replaced it with one guaranteed to work at 1080p which it did just fine. It wasn't massively expensive even back then.
Last year I got a JVC projector with 3D capabilities (I didn't bother with the glasses since it gives me a headache) but just as an experiment I tested to see if my decent quality 1080p cable allowed 3D signal to be passed down 12 metres. It worked perfectly, just that I couldn't see the image in 3D of course, just that double vision effect.
However unless you plan running 4K upto a bedroom then I'm not sure it's that critical as surely the 4K stuff would be in your living room anyway?
Put it this way: I ran a '1080p' capable 12 metre cable around my living room 6 years ago. The first one I bought wouldn't carry 1080p and just gave noise above 720p so I replaced it with one guaranteed to work at 1080p which it did just fine. It wasn't massively expensive even back then.
Last year I got a JVC projector with 3D capabilities (I didn't bother with the glasses since it gives me a headache) but just as an experiment I tested to see if my decent quality 1080p cable allowed 3D signal to be passed down 12 metres. It worked perfectly, just that I couldn't see the image in 3D of course, just that double vision effect.
However unless you plan running 4K upto a bedroom then I'm not sure it's that critical as surely the 4K stuff would be in your living room anyway?
Jamster123 said:
Thanks , tell me this , will my current ( expensive ) hdmi cables that run from upstairs to downstairs , buried in the wall, work with 4k ?
Depends on their spec:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI
If they are 1.4 or later they will be OK.
HDMI 2.0 is coming soon, which would allow for 4k, 60fps content.
OldSkoolRS said:
However, I am of the opinion that 4K TVs don't make much sense since most viewers don't sit close enough to benefit fully from 1080p let alone 4K. Even a projector set up requires quite close seating/very large screen to benefit. For example I sit 11' away from a 10' wide projector screen and I'm just into the 'benefits from 2160p (4K)' range. My 40" viewed from the same distance falls into the 'benefits of 720p become apparent' (ie I'm not close enough to see the benefit of 1080p).
Something to think about before we all go rushing out to buy one...
I've read this before and understand it but here's my question. I've got a Panasonic VT 50 which I sit 12 or 13 ft from. Now I am no pixel peaper (clearly) but I can notice the difference between SD and 1080p....so how far away would I have to sit to not be able to see the difference? Quite a long way I think. That argument about differentiation between resolution must fall down a bit when the differences are big like say 720p and 4k ?!?!Something to think about before we all go rushing out to buy one...
Bare in mind that when comparing an SD broadcast and a HD one (such as both versions of BBC One) you aren't just comparing resolution, but bit rate as well. It's also the reason why HD broadcasts don't look as good as BluRays (generally).
I can tell when my TV is on BBC One SD rather than HD even though it's only 40" and viewed from 11' or so, despite the charts saying that I'm too far away to get the benefit of 1080p.
However, if I put a decent DVD on and use my external Lumagen video processor to upscale it to 1080p then it's much harder to tell from my viewing distance if it's HD or SD (source) as I've tried this with DVD and BluRay versions of Casino Royale. Since I've not been able to do this test 'blind' I'm not even sure if it's because I know which disc I'm watching.
I can tell when my TV is on BBC One SD rather than HD even though it's only 40" and viewed from 11' or so, despite the charts saying that I'm too far away to get the benefit of 1080p.
However, if I put a decent DVD on and use my external Lumagen video processor to upscale it to 1080p then it's much harder to tell from my viewing distance if it's HD or SD (source) as I've tried this with DVD and BluRay versions of Casino Royale. Since I've not been able to do this test 'blind' I'm not even sure if it's because I know which disc I'm watching.
OldSkoolRS said:
Bare in mind that when comparing an SD broadcast and a HD one (such as both versions of BBC One) you aren't just comparing resolution, but bit rate as well. It's also the reason why HD broadcasts don't look as good as BluRays (generally).
I can tell when my TV is on BBC One SD rather than HD even though it's only 40" and viewed from 11' or so, despite the charts saying that I'm too far away to get the benefit of 1080p.
However, if I put a decent DVD on and use my external Lumagen video processor to upscale it to 1080p then it's much harder to tell from my viewing distance if it's HD or SD (source) as I've tried this with DVD and BluRay versions of Casino Royale. Since I've not been able to do this test 'blind' I'm not even sure if it's because I know which disc I'm watching.
You are absolutely right, comparing DVD to BluRay is not the same as comparing 480p to 1080p. The best way to really test is to change the output resolution of a blu ray player down to 720p or 480p. The difference between 720p and 1080p is pretty small, even less then a foot from my (very sharp) 24inch monitor.I can tell when my TV is on BBC One SD rather than HD even though it's only 40" and viewed from 11' or so, despite the charts saying that I'm too far away to get the benefit of 1080p.
However, if I put a decent DVD on and use my external Lumagen video processor to upscale it to 1080p then it's much harder to tell from my viewing distance if it's HD or SD (source) as I've tried this with DVD and BluRay versions of Casino Royale. Since I've not been able to do this test 'blind' I'm not even sure if it's because I know which disc I'm watching.
It is also worth clarifying that 'HD' TV is 720p at the moment.
Wozy68 said:
Jamster123 said:
I can get Samsung 4K f900 for £2600.
Think Im decided
Wouldn't bother. A good friend of mine is a wildlife photographer. They are just about too, or are already using 8k gear. So whats the point in a 4K telly?Think Im decided
Wozy68 interesting that you can get an F9000 for £2600, all i'll say is before you put your money into the salesmans sweaty hands, get the set
alongside a Panasonic TXP55VT65 plasma in an environment that mirrors your viewing at home (most peoples ambient light levels are massively
lower in home than in TV stores) Viewed in an appropriate environment i'd still go for the 1080p Plasma as for everything that isn't 4k it stuffs the F9000, and you'll get one of them for under £1900.
As you've probably guessed I work in this industry, and have had sight of all the current 4K sets with the exception of the LG one and when set up correctly I think the Plasma still wins.
Now the only caviat to that is if Panasonic and Sony release the much rumoured genuine 4k disc based delivery system in Q2 of next year! even so it'll be very difficult to see the difference between 1080p and 4k on a 55" screen.
You'll still have the advantages that plasma bring, far better black levels, superior motion handling and wider viewing angles to name a few.
I think the next big TV development will be OLED LG & Samsung have had the field to themselves for over a year so far, but haven't brought anything significant to the market (I know there are curved sets in many stores at the moment but I don't understand the reasoning behind it other than corporate willy waving between the Korean manufacturers)
Both 55"/65" sets from LG/Samsung are 1080p panels, but my pet bod at Bracknell let slip that the RGB printing method that Panasonic have developed have brought unheard of reliability this early in the development phase of this technology, this may also be the reason why Panasonic are ending the manufacturing of plasma panels this year ( I was generally accepted that Plasmas would get one more year)
My guess is Panasonic may launch more reasonably priced OLED tech at the CES show in January my sources mentioned 3 sizes so I would say probably 55/65/75 inch sizes all 4k together with a genuine disc based 4k delivery system.
this might all be total b
ks of course this industry is full of "what-ifs" and blind alleys.........Good info thanks. Issue I have is I need something really thin. I sunk my current TV into the wall and he new one will also be wall mounted. Our lounge is pretty small. Its going to look out of place if anything is sticking out from the wall too much as I have in wall speakers surrounding the TV too.
Just a point of view from the broadcast industry, I would say that 4k broadcasts are a long long way off. We were burnt by the 3d 'Revolution' as masses of investment went that way and very little came of it.
4k use in live sport (which tends to be ahead of the curve in broadcast) use 4k as a production tool which allows the use of an HD cutout of a 4k image. So 4k in HD out. The broadcast chain just isn't setup for 4k at all and the amount of investment isn't there at the moment.
Unless the movie industry gets it's finger out and starts to offer a useable 4k solution at home, I don't see it being much more than a marketing tool for the next 5 years at least.
4k use in live sport (which tends to be ahead of the curve in broadcast) use 4k as a production tool which allows the use of an HD cutout of a 4k image. So 4k in HD out. The broadcast chain just isn't setup for 4k at all and the amount of investment isn't there at the moment.
Unless the movie industry gets it's finger out and starts to offer a useable 4k solution at home, I don't see it being much more than a marketing tool for the next 5 years at least.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff